Originally posted by kmax87
You do realize that Mr Denmark et Sweden's camera is not 1m above sea level right?? And yet all his calcs are based on a 1m above sea level. If you cannot judge for yourself that the camera height is much more than 1m above the sea level, not above the jetty level which is clearly more than 1m above the sea lapping at the shore below, then I got nothing for ...[text shortened]... the airline industry has being lying about the max cruise speed of passenger aircraft all along.
He's down at the water, so I don't know that I would quibble too much about his calculation, but just for chips and giggles, let's put a pencil to it.
For the chimney example, if he should have calculated 6' instead (and we have no real reason to think so, since the beginning shows he's down at water level), he's off by 15'--- as in 15' less loss than reported.
Does that look like 15' worth of difference in the zoomed in version?
For the water tower at 276', he's got the loss at 203' and at 6' it would be 18' less, to 185'.
The water tower should show only the top 91', but that's clearly not the case.
Grain silos he has at 154' but take it to 139' and the results are about the same.
You'd only be able to see about 15' of the top of the silos, but, again, this is not the case.
Conclusion: if he's off, it's not by much, and certainly nowhere near significant enough to erase the overall results.